Ah, ok - then we’re in agreement.

So... happy anniversary of the glorification of leering at women in public...?

Well, it seems the “could have handled it better” comments are about the handling of the case itself, rather than controlling the “optics” - especially since so many of those people are claiming that Cinemark sued the victims. I really don’t know what they could have done ‘better’ in being sued than offering a…

“I don’t see the point in arguing about which type of institution is failing student victims”

“They are (were) using the judicial system to try and force the victims of an attack on their premises to pay their attorney’s fees.”

The giving birth vs. adoption thing reminds me of a conversation I witnessed at my previous job a while back, between one lower-level employee (let’s call her “Karen”), and an associate-level staff member (let’s call her “Janet”). Janet (and her husband) had recently adopted an infant, and she had recently returned…

“I think a lot of meatspace discussions are less combative only because of the survival instinct to get along with others.”

HAHAHA - WHAT?!?

It’s amazing how much effort these people ultimately put into making a complete embarrassment of themselves. What’s really odd is that, in any real-life conversation I’ve had with people about controversial topics, people typically admit to not having read a full article or whatever before speaking, and when they do…

Not thinking clearly and, apparently, not bothering to actually read the facts of the case. But who needs facts when there’s outrage to declare on the internet in order to make yourself feel like you have superior morals?

Travelgrrl isn’t interested in facts. They actually claimed that Cinemark “announce(d) they were suing the innocent victims who got hurt in their business”. Challenged with providing a link to an official announcement from Cinemark stating they were actively pursuing a lawsuit against these people, Travelgrrl…

tl;dr version: you are basing your arguments on shit you are making up, and you admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

Not to mention how many people here seem to believe that Cinemark was “bullying” the plaintiffs and/or “suing them”. The lack of reading comprehension skills - or lack of reading at all - on display here is mind-boggling.

“Or they could put a latch on the door that allows it to be opened from the inside but not the outside. They cost less than $5.”

“Cinemark used their considerable resources to bully the plaintiffs out of seeking a higher court’s opinion.”

“There have been three theater shootings since 2012—Aurora, Louisiana, and Nashville.”

When did I argue that people who had loved ones killed in a theater would not want to “lash out somehow”?

They said that Cinemark is “awful” and that they were boycotting them. I asked why they think that, and why they were boycotting them. Again, I never argued against their opinion.

“But the big reason they’re awful is money. They earn 700k in profits in like a day, day and a half.”

The idiocy on display here is astounding.